Ok, let's talk unions again

[szh]

And, the union member tactics (some of which are illegal - including shooting BB guns at Verizon workers who are non-union and not on strike) are going to cause normal citizens to side against them.

See this: http://www.bostonherald.com/business/ge ... id=1357911 for an example. The poll on the right in the above link is particularly telling.

Z

[stebo0728]

Union intimidation is up there with mafia "neighborhood protectionsim". I just hope they are never able to do away with regulation requiring a SECRET ballot for unionization. Folks will sign those petitions all day long to keep from being bullied, but the real wishes become clear when the secret ballot results come around.

[AZhitman]

We're in a RTW state. I deal with union reps all the time, usually when I'm presenting a case for their termination or discipline in front of an Administrative Law Judge. Invariably, the employees all walk in smug and confident with their Rep, because they've been told they'll be "taken care of". When the Rep fails to defend them from a well-investigated case, and the ALJ sides with the Agency, they look at their Rep like he/she just banged their spouse.

My favorite part is when those same reps set up a "recruitment" table in the lobby of our building... I always make sure to stop by and grab a few of their free pens for my office.

[IBCoupe]

What effect is it that you imagine unions have?

Nice of you to ask.

http://www.nrtw.org/en/blog/union-milit ... ke08122111

BTW, of the 50 top-tier companies in the Fortune 500, only 5 have a majority of employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement. General Motors, Ford, AT&T, Kroger and UPS.

The remaining 45 either have minimal union involvement or are non-union. That's a nice long list of companies with well-compensated workers and good employee retention.

Sure those are the numbers you want to run with? It's actually not that helpful for your argument. That's actually much higher than the national rate. 6% of all workers are unionized, and you've just pointed to a 10% share in top-tier Fortune 500 companies.

And as for your link: how many thousands of workers are on strike? And you've got FOUR anecdotes? Seriously, can we start behaving rationally?

[AZhitman]

....or a 1% share of all Fortune 500 companies is union, when 10% of non-Fortune 500 companies are.

That tells me something too.

I started the thread about the union workers @ Verizon. The 4 "anecdotes" are about union workers @ Verizon. I'm not sure why you want me to lump everyone else in with them. I'm sure the rest of the picketing workers nationwide behave quite civilly, and I tip my hat to them.

[IBCoupe]

So those 5 union companies are the only ones in all of the Fortune 500? That's not what you said before, and that they're all in the top 50 speaks wonders for unions.

Yes, and my question is: how many thousands of Verizon union workers are on strike?

[IBCoupe]

I googled it for you.

http://www.golocalprov.com/business/new ... week-mark/

45000 strikers, and you found four allegations of misbehavior. I wouldn't be nearly as disgusted with your arguments if I didn't respect you guys. Argue honestly, please. "Union thuggery" is a lie, and it's unbecoming.

[AZhitman]

No, that's not in the numbers. I don't know how many of the other 450 are unionized. Actually, that also doesn't take into account the number of union workers. They're only counted as unionized (per their 10-K filing with the SEC) if a majority of employees are covered by a CBA.

Of the 50, 5 companies are "unionized". 6 more report that a minority of their workers have union protection, 2 didn't report and the remaining 35 either make no mention of unions or are union-free.

[AZhitman]

"Union thuggery" is a lie, and it's unbecoming.

So is racism amongst Tea Party supporters. Yet it gets bandied about as gospel.

[AZhitman]

BTW, I lol'ed at this... it's a good (and short) read.

R/T and Howie should get together and read it to each other over a nice glass of Chablis.

How Much Good Could Labor Union Leaders Do If They Cared?
http://www.sundriesshack.com/2011/04/22 ... hey-cared/

[IBCoupe]

No, that's not in the numbers. I don't know how many of the other 450 are unionized. Actually, that also doesn't take into account the number of union workers. They're only counted as unionized (per their 10-K filing with the SEC) if a majority of employees are covered by a CBA.

Of the 50, 5 companies are "unionized". 6 more report that a minority of their workers have union protection, 2 didn't report and the remaining 35 either make no mention of unions or are union-free.

Right, so that was a pretty funny statistic to throw out there.

[IBCoupe]

"Union thuggery" is a lie, and it's unbecoming.

So is racism amongst Tea Party supporters. Yet it gets bandied about as gospel.

Not by me. And not by you. Why start now?

[IBCoupe]

BTW, I lol'ed at this... it's a good (and short) read.

R/T and Howie should get together and read it to each other over a nice glass of Chablis.

How Much Good Could Labor Union Leaders Do If They Cared?
http://www.sundriesshack.com/2011/04/22 ... hey-cared/

Lost me at "It is an article of faith on the left that if we simply jacked taxes up on some random number of faceless and nameless rich people, we could magically turn that money into great-paying jobs for other people who aren’t rich."

[AZhitman]

Actually, if you extrapolate the 11 of the 50 out to 500, assuming the rest of the 500 look just like the top 50, and we assume 70% membership in 5 companies and 25% in 6 more (and 0% in the remaining 37), you get a number that's fairly representative of the national average.

My point was, if they were so beneficial, don't you think you'd see more union companies at the top of the list?

[IBCoupe]

Not really. Unionization is beneficial more to the employee; it's part of a person's individual rights. A good relationship between employer and union can be beneficial, but then you have to begin to wonder if the union is doing its job.

Its job isn't to pad profits. It's to get the best deal it can for its members. Sometimes, a long-term view means padding profits, but not always.

[smockers83]

Ok union supporters, enlighten us as to how unions present a free market in terms of the labor market.

Nobody can be forced not to quit. The labor market is free.

At the very essence of a free market, resources are allowed to move around freely. In this case, those resources are capital and labor.

What effect is it that you imagine unions have?

LOL, that was enlightening. Good argument you has.

In a union environment, there are contractual rules and regulations towards having to let someone go. Putting in regulations inherently isn't a free market. For example, if a Teamster is caught on video violating policy (and maybe even law), he cannot be fired because in the contract it says that Teamsters can only be fired if directly observed. Yeah, that's a free market labor force.

Also, free market principles say that if the employer says they will pay $X, those with the talent and skills worth $X will apply, thus creating a market and an equilibrium market price for that labor. So therefore, employers can set wages such that to attract the correct levels of skills and talent for the particular position. If an employer knows that higher skills aren't required, it will push down it's wage for that position in order to attract only those who are qualified for it. Overpaying a position puts overqualified people into the position, thus wasting productivity, skill, and talent. And this is not just the case within the company, but the whole economy as well. When you get a union involved, most of them put the labor market out of equilibrium by demanding higher wages and other compensation than what the free market would normally produce for that level of skill and talent. It promotes the wrong allocation of labor much like subsidies and tax breaks promote the misallocation of economic resources relative to a market that is not tinkered with. The classic, most obvious and known case of this is the UAW and the Big 3 against Japanese automakers. The Big 3 had labor costs per unit that were, perhaps still are, sky high compared to the Japanese companies because the Big 3 couldn't get to the market equilibrium due to the union.

Now, at the same time, employers can compete with each other for labor in that they bid up their wages relative to other employers in order to steal labor. If an employer is expecting production to increase and the labor market is relatively tapped out, thus meaning labor supply is low, it can raise it's wages to broaden it's labor supply by extracting labor from another employer that doesn't pay as much. That is all of one example of free market labor.

[szh]

"Union thuggery" is a lie, and it's unbecoming.

So is racism amongst Tea Party supporters. Yet it gets bandied about as gospel.

And "terrorism" against Republican politicians!

Z

[szh]

I am being vague? I didn't think so. I thought it was obvious.

For the union to demand benefits that are not the norm in this day and age, on the basis that Verizon is screwing them, is unrealistic and wrong.

Only if you presume that the norm is something other than "being screwed," and that, if it isn't, that fighting for your own interest is unrealistic and wrong. Can we hold off on the foot-worshipping of employers and recognize that employees are equally important in this? That "you take what you're given, or you're being unrealistic and wrong" is an absurd way to look at the world?

"Foot-worshipping of employers"?

You presume a lot, don't you? I am not going to bother answering this snarky comment ... your premise and argument is so ridiculously extreme, it does not deserve any further attention.

Z, I'm not too familiar with your background, but you strike me as someone who thinks a job is a hand-out.

Really? What gave you that impression?

And you are apparently an expert on jobs and hand-outs ... and an expert on unions too?

I have no idea - I am not their member or in their management body.

Ah, but you're all too eager to tell us that the union is unrealistic and wrong to even make the demands, right?

Please don't twist my words and don't jump to opposite conclusions as usual. And as you did further above too.

I did not say that they should not make demands at all. I said that they should not make demands that make it unlikely to get them taken seriously - they need to let people believe that they are indeed negotiating for fair outcomes. As it stands, I would not support them in their extreme positions.

BTW, are you in their management? Or a member of that union? So that you can enlighten us as to what they want for the "final outcome" you asked about? If not, then you are in the dark too, so please don't profess to read their minds.

I am taking their demands literally ... what has the union said about their demands that makes you believe that they are not serious about them?

OTOH, if you are saying that they are making demands that they do not believe in, what purpose does this serve except for them to end up sounding illogical? And thus likely to lose the negotiations more one-sidedly than not?

I have a fundamental understanding of how negotiations work: you ask for more than what you're willing to settle more. I thought most people did.

Then you have not done any serious negotiations that are relevant to the discussion.

Sure, in negotiations, you ask for more than what you are willing to settle for - then the counter-offer will set the limits and you are off to the negotiating table.

However, if a demand creates an obvious (and, in this case, instant) impasse because it is unreasonable up-front, there is no incentive for the other party to even bother making a counter-offer. Because the counter-offer may/will have to be so far in the other direction that negotiations will stale-mate. The other party can and will walk away from any possible deal.

BTW, making an over-the-top demand is often a strategy taken by a party who wants that walk-away as an outcome, but does not want to be blamed for any impasse. Now, why the union would want this, in this Verizon case, is not clear to me.

Z

[AZhitman]

I'm still having difficulty understanding how an employee can score "Does Not Meet Expectations" on a performance review and still qualify for a raise that a non-union employee would NOT have gotten.

That's disparate treatment, I don't give a damn how you slice it.

It's buying yourself a Lazy Pass.

[smockers83]

^ Affirmative action. Lazy liberals are a protected class and the workplace needs a diverse work ethic.

[AZhitman]

I'll mutter that under my breath on Monday when I stop by to get my free pens.

They don't even look at me anymore....

[telcoman]

I'm still having difficulty understanding how an employee can score "Does Not Meet Expectations" on a performance review and still qualify for a raise that a non-union employee would NOT have gotten.

That's disparate treatment, I don't give a damn how you slice it.

It's buying yourself a Lazy Pass.

It's in the contract and it is not disparate treatment. All union employees are treated under contract rules and non union are SOFL

[R/T Hemi]

I'm still having difficulty understanding how an employee can score "Does Not Meet Expectations" on a performance review and still qualify for a raise that a non-union employee would NOT have gotten.

That's disparate treatment, I don't give a damn how you slice it.

It's buying yourself a Lazy Pass.

It's called civil service in the non-union world. It's where we send those who can't make it on the outside to retire on active duty.
It's societies fault for removing the benefits of excellence from both of those worlds. Ever see a civil serpent go in early, stay late and do homework on Saturday if not on the clock? Don't blame unions for a screwed up work ethic, regardless, they get the job done.

[AZhitman]

Excellence my a$$. It's a lazy pass. Oh, blame "society". Blame yourself - not me. It IS disparate treatment, the same as if a White employee got $3 an hour more than a Black employee.

You guys can keep buying your way into a handout. I'll make myself invaluable to my employer, and sleep well at night knowing I didn't strong-arm anyone into giving me an undeserved (and unearned) raise.

[telcoman]

I'll make myself invaluable to my employer, and sleep well at night knowing I didn't strong-arm anyone into giving me an undeserved (and unearned) raise.

Sucka$$

Verizon workers going back to work Monday as the company agreed to extend the contract until negotiations on a new contract is completed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/techn ... ml?_r=1&hp



“In a statement issued on Saturday, Verizon said the parties had agreed on a process “for moving forward to negotiate the major issues regarding benefits, cost structure, work flexibility and job security.”

Translation

Verizon must be having big problems without their regular workforce

I'm sure Greg will enjoy paying more out of his pocket for healthcare in the future.
Perhaps he might not mind giving back a few vacation days to help out his employer?

Telcoman

[AZhitman]

I already have, genius.

We were on 12 mandatory furlough days last fiscal year, and last year I was co-chair of a task force that cut over $1.5 million without hurting anyone's paycheck - mostly through procurement restructuring, closer contract monitoring, utilization of prison work crews for maintenance and cleaning, and limiting personal use of state assets.

As a result, no more mandatory furlough days.

The fact that you'd call someone who goes above and beyond a "sucka$$" tells me all I need to know. Sounds like a comment from a lazy, entitled person who doesn't take pride in their work.

[AZhitman]

..speaking of people who don't take pride in their work...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manh ... Nb8NnYyHWI

Whoops.

[telcoman]

..speaking of people who don't take pride in their work...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manh ... Nb8NnYyHWI

Whoops.

The NY Post has as much credibility has Fox

Both owned my the same miscreant

Why do you keep quoting such unreliable sources?

[R/T Hemi]

Greg. Really. That's one step above the Onion. (Or not)

Alcohol is a problem in this country for many people. It transcends all barriers. You'll find people with drinking problems in every segment of life. Why do you point to one example of one small group and paint all others as the same?

I think that this Christmas I'll get you a much needed new set of brushes. A set with some narrow brushes so you can paint much narrower lines when posting.

[IBCoupe]

In a union environment, there are contractual rules and regulations towards having to let someone go. Putting in regulations inherently isn't a free market. For example, if a Teamster is caught on video violating policy (and maybe even law), he cannot be fired because in the contract it says that Teamsters can only be fired if directly observed. Yeah, that's a free market labor force.

You asked how the labor market was free. Not the labor force. The labor market is still free, and further: NEGOTIATE A BETTER CONTRACT, IF IT BOTHERS YOU. If you're not a party to the negotiations, BUTT OUT. It's that simple. You want a free market? Let the parties contract.

When you get a union involved, most of them put the labor market out of equilibrium by demanding higher wages and other compensation than what the free market would normally produce for that level of skill and talent.

Which isn't bad. A "free market" has slavery and indentured servitude. Why is it that unions are a bridge too far in limiting what the market can do to those producing its labor?

Now, at the same time, employers can compete with each other for labor in that they bid up their wages relative to other employers in order to steal labor. If an employer is expecting production to increase and the labor market is relatively tapped out, thus meaning labor supply is low, it can raise it's wages to broaden it's labor supply by extracting labor from another employer that doesn't pay as much. That is all of one example of free market labor.

Are you under the impression that employers can't offer more pay? That a union somehow prevents wage competition? Huh?